JOGI SATYAM Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER RANDBDEPT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal arises out of an order of the learned Single Judge declining to exercise the writ jurisdiction to interfere with the notice issued by the Deputy Executive Engineer, R&B Department, Bhimavaram, for removing the encroachments made on the road, which is causing traffic hazard.

(2.) When the matter came up for hearing, this Court in order to satisfy itself whether the construction of the appellants is on the road or on the road berms, and whether the alleged construction is hazardous to the free flow of traffic on the road or not, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the land in dispute and report to this Court

(3.) The learned Advocate Commissioner for the reasons best known on point No. 2 whether the alleged construction is hazardous to the free flow of traffic on the road or not observed that when he inspected the land in question he did not find any movement of heavy traffic, and therefore, he is unable to report whether there is any hazard to the free flow of traffic. The Advocate Commissioner, however, placed on record certain photographs of the spot taken in the month of May, 2000 which are not disputed by the learned Counsel.